Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sen. Rand Paul is Giving a Genuine Filibuster

86 posts in this topic

Posted

Interesting how the paleo conservatives are now suddenly against this kind of thing they were all for during Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Keey trying Delhommey, maybe say it again in a 3rd way if somebody doesn't respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can't help it you have no response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Scenario: An American citizen is discovered preparing an attack on something inside the US. In order to prevent an attack, a drone is used instead of ground forces for some reason. Would you give Obama "a pass" on that if he didn't order the attack? Or call him a spineless liberal?

This is why there is not a definitive "no" - because we want to let everyone know that you are not going to get a lot of extra time by using an American citizen to do your dirty work.

Does it suck? Yes. Do I like it? Not Really. But saying something completely negative when asked about this would be unethical.

Yea we should probably throw due-process out the window and blow the dude and everything around him to pieces on a hunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Interesting how the paleo conservatives are now suddenly against this kind of thing they were all for during Bush.

I'll go ahead and bite. maybe the conservatives trusted bush's better judgement. But not Obummers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hey, if the definition is broad and non-specific, then it clears them of responsibility when they kill some guy's neighbor and their neighbor as unintended targets as well.

Cool beans. Just like we do in the Middle East.

Now, let's get back to fighting each other and calling each other names based on our worthless political party affiliation and ideologies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555

I suppose the "tweets" by all on the left, got the administration to take this a bit more seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yea we should probably throw due-process out the window and blow the dude and everything around him to pieces on a hunch.

It really is that simple. No need for stupid scenarios and what ifs. It's blatantly unconstitutional. But par for the course the constitution is only used when convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://washingtonexa...article/2523555

I suppose the "tweets" by all on the left, got the administration to take this a bit more seriously.

Problem is, that still isn't specified in the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The only thing dems and pubs can agree on: murdering Americans on American soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'll go ahead and bite. maybe the conservatives trusted bush's better judgement. But not Obummers?

lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

can anyone in here think of a situation conceivable in which knocking out an individual with a drone would be beneficial to the greater good of a vast number of people?

Remember the guy who stole the tank a few years ago and drove it down main street? What if it was loaded with ammunition and he was killing people and a hell fire armed drone was the only weapon that could get to him fast enough to prevent him from killing more people?

If the Union army had drones, should they have been allowed to take out Robert E. Lee or other Confederate commanders?

Why does it even matter if its a drone or some other type of military weapon? If a government agency such as the FBI takes out a armed group with an Armored Personnel carries, like so many police groups use these days, is that ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites